- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. LFaraone 00:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Surveillance Detection Unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another WP:NOTNEWS WikiLeaks cable-related stub[1] that is not ready for the encyclopedia. I recently prodded,[2] and it was declined.[3] I then redirected to the parent contents leak article[4] which was quickly reverted.[5] I nominate this article and leave it to the community to decide what to do. Viriditas (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Nomination based utter misapprehension of facts as I explained to nominator 45 minutes prior to this nom being posted. This has little to do with the United States diplomatic cables leak and this scandal had begun several weeks prior to those releases. I also tried to convey to nominator that there exists prolific coverage of this organization (actually these organizations, as they seem to have been created using the same mold in a plethora of countries) in a number of countries (see e.g. Google News search for brief impression). For some reason that also did not register. __meco (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those links indicate a breaking news story that does not support the claims in the current article nor enough content for an encyclopedia article on Wikipedia, hence the redirect to contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak. Another possible redirect might be Norway – United States relations. However, you may be interested in writing an article for Wikinews. Viriditas (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are lots of things I might be interested in, but why bring them up here? This is not an article of my creation. __meco (talk) 15:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those links indicate a breaking news story that does not support the claims in the current article nor enough content for an encyclopedia article on Wikipedia, hence the redirect to contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak. Another possible redirect might be Norway – United States relations. However, you may be interested in writing an article for Wikinews. Viriditas (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Waek delete At this time no evidacne of any real notability. If more sources come forward I would change.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Norway content has been presented to more depth since the the version you presumably looked at and SDU reports from four more countries (with various degrees of acceptance or controversy) are included now. Boud (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is getting a large amount of press in Norway alone; I haven't even looked for sources in other countries. It's likely that the nomination is based in part on the fact that few editors on en.wikipedia can read the Norwegian-language sources, or the German-language one that was in the article. I have expanded these, including finding the online version of the initial TV 2 (Norway) report referenced in the text, and also added 2 English-language reports. I'll be happy to translate the Norwegian and German sources if requested; I imagine the article creator would also gladly provide translated quotations. The other issue appears to be confusion with the Wiki Leaks release of diplomatic cables, but that story broke on November 28; this broke on November 3. Viriditas appears to have misinterpreted this story in The Foreigner, but it is not saying Wiki Leaks broke the story of the SDU in Norway, just the opposite: "Some of them may provide insight about the controversial Surveillance Detection Unit (SDU), stoking the fire over US spying practices in Norway." So this should not be merged, and does meet notability criteria - what it badly needs is expansion to cover other countries. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said WikiLeaks broke the story; as you show above, they did not. However, it recently received coverage in the The Foreigner with the anticipation that a new WikiLeaks cable would shed light on the topic. Now, with that said, what good sources do we have for an encyclopedic article on the subject? None, as far as I can see. What we have is a lot of speculation and plans for investigations, which would be better off in other articles such as those listed above. Again, WP:NOTNEWS comes into play. This is a breaking news story that does not have enough information for an article. If the WikiLeaks cable article is not the appropriate place for a redirect, then Norway – United States relations should suffice. We simply do not have any good information yet, and the claims made in the current stub do not have good sources supporting them. Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I misunderstood your argument then; the Foreigner article that you cited clearly demonstrates that this was already a big issue in Norway - they felt the data in the leaked cables were going to add fuel to the fire, a pretty clear demonstration that this story precedes the Wiki Leaks one. I'm also not sure what your standard of sufficient information is: the articles I've cited name names, name the building (with photos and floor), give a year for the program's inception, say how many people were involved, and refer to the database used and the kinds of data entered. Would you like more of these specifics added? I thought a summary was more encyclopedic, but there is no lack of material. (The investigation was mentioned in only one source, I cannot guess whether it was quashed or is simply not being made public at this point; but I don't believe this requires an investigation, or published results of it, to be notable.) This has been in the media for a while now, it's far from "breaking" at this point. Would it be helpful in demonstrating notability if a section on Germany or some other country were researched and added? In my view the coverage of the Norwegian report and the fallout from it suffices to establish notability, but the article will need to cover other countries to be adequate. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It reads as a speculative Wikinews report, not an encyclopedic topic or article. I'm not seeing any good sources about this subject. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I misunderstood your argument then; the Foreigner article that you cited clearly demonstrates that this was already a big issue in Norway - they felt the data in the leaked cables were going to add fuel to the fire, a pretty clear demonstration that this story precedes the Wiki Leaks one. I'm also not sure what your standard of sufficient information is: the articles I've cited name names, name the building (with photos and floor), give a year for the program's inception, say how many people were involved, and refer to the database used and the kinds of data entered. Would you like more of these specifics added? I thought a summary was more encyclopedic, but there is no lack of material. (The investigation was mentioned in only one source, I cannot guess whether it was quashed or is simply not being made public at this point; but I don't believe this requires an investigation, or published results of it, to be notable.) This has been in the media for a while now, it's far from "breaking" at this point. Would it be helpful in demonstrating notability if a section on Germany or some other country were researched and added? In my view the coverage of the Norwegian report and the fallout from it suffices to establish notability, but the article will need to cover other countries to be adequate. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (1) This is clearly a major scandal in Norway of sociopolitical importance across the political spectrum. This Wikipedia is not the UK/USA-Wikipedia, it's the English-language Wikipedia about World-wide knowledge. Weak coverage by the NYT, Guardian etc. does not make the subject non-notable. (2) The SDUs have been uncovered in
fourfive different countries: this is now an international issue. This would not have been reported in thethreefour other countries if it were not Notable. Boud (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Numbers updated. Boud (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.